finish_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explicitly states the tool does NOT write anything ('NAO grava nada') and requires user approval before calling `remember`, which is important behavioral transparency. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does not mention what the return/output looks like beyond the change_set being returned, and doesn't clarify side effects of the analysis itself.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, dense with information, no waste. The description packs purpose, workflow, non-persistence behavior, and the approval gate into a compact block. Slightly long but every sentence earns its place; the flow is clearly presented.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one string parameter and a rich workflow (analyze, suggest, get approval, call remember), the description covers the key behavioral elements. The output schema exists, so return format needn't be detailed. It could mention error cases or what happens if analysis yields nothing, but overall it's fairly complete for this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explains that `summary` should be a summary of what was done and decided, which adds meaningful context. With only one parameter and this explanation, the guidance is adequate and adds value beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool finishes a task by passing a summary of what was done and decided. It names the specific verb (finish) and resource (task). It distinguishes from siblings by explaining this is the task-completion step, separate from remember (persisting knowledge) and search/context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance on when to call it (when finishing a task) and the workflow: it analyzes the summary, suggests what should become permanent knowledge, doesn't save anything, and only calls `remember` if the user approves the change_set. It names the alternative (`remember`) and the conditional flow, though it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it beyond the non-writing behavior.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.